4 Ways 2001: A Space Odyssey Was a Visual-Effects Pioneer 

To me, they both look best when used together. As an example, Watch Jurassic Park.

I totally agree with you (weird name).

Nobody cares

@@FirstnameLastname-zh9hd i do

@@FirstnameLastname-zh9hd I do

@@vishnur9852 I stand corrected

Ah, theres that person in the youtube comments with the need to expell their inner sadnes

Fantastic Voyage was a serious, high concept, high-production values project too.

@@johnedwards1321 Well, yes. But the special effects were very much along the lines of the current b-movie science fiction (no not impressive at all). It looks like a b-sci fi film with a budget. 2001 looks like what the future might actually look like, and it still holds up. Fantastic Voyage certainly didn't have any real impact on budding filmmakers at all, and had no impact on how science fiction films were seen (which is unfortunate, since I'm a big Isaac Asimov fan). 2001 changed the sci-fi film from men in gorilla costumes and fishbowls on their heads capturing fainting women to a serious film genre. It inspired George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, etc. It really did change filmmaking. Fantastic Voyage...didn't.

@@Ocrilat I agreed completly. I just think that FV is often overlooked. It's special effects don't hold up, clearly, but it was a bond concept and the Proteus was a very cool ship ( apparent from the paper maps instead of fancy computer read-outs). In fact, I think one of the genuinely brilliant moves in 2001 was the absence of knobs and dials, a merely relied on screens with colorful and stark letters and numbers as control mechanisms which keep it fully up to date no matter what the most recent iterations of iPad's look like. The clean no-bullshit interiors truly sell the whole thing. Anyway, thanks. This was fun. Cheers, John

Very well said! 2001: A Space Odyssey is a groundbreaking and revolutionary film in so many different ways and I agree with everything that you said! Yes, it raised the bar for sci-fi special effects, yes, it changed the Sci-Fi genre and made people take it seriously as a respected and sophisticated artform and yes, it inspired a generation of filmmakers! I would also say the movie also inspired future scientists, inventors, engineers, astronauts, technicians, doctors, authors, artists, and people in a variety of different career fields. I'm an aspiring author( and comic book writer and illustrator) and 2001 has been a big influence for the kinds of books and comic books that I want to write!

landed on set you mean, lol :-P i am just razzing you but i am slightly serious

@@hispace7657 I don't think anyone should be called retarded for speculation.

@@melsoro7311 I speculate that if I jump from the tallest building in the world I will fly...Am I not a retarded???

@@juantsu2000 no just delusional.

@@melsoro7311 The same can be said for people that think the moon landing was a hoax.

There’s some thats almost seem less

War for the Planet of the Apes, CGI Apes, Horses, Mountains, Avalanche, some environments, etc. looked actually real...

There was no CGI when 2001 was made back in the 1960s. That kind of technology simply didn't exist back then, so they made do with what they had and what was available to them and I have to say how impressed I am by how well to this day, well over 50 years later, the movie still holds up and looks better than some movies being made now! Now that in of itself is an achievement when nearly 60 years later, you can say that your film still holds up! 2001 really was ahead of it's time!

​@@JR-ju3kjthere was CGI but it was rudimentary by today's standards

yep...Royal Wedding being a perfect example.

I've always wondered why rotating sets were needed for people that didn't need to appear being thrown to the side (as in the film examples shown). If they remained upright the entire time, it would have been easier to do nothing more than rotate the camera as they walked down a stationary corridor.

Other movies may have used these techniques before, but 2001 reinvented those techniques in more ways than any other film.

@@stephaniemitchell8509 But, the rotating corridor was actually TWO rotating corridors. Only one of the corridors rotated at a given time. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--RGGK2uyJOw.html

the clarity of image is just a result of the film being rescanned in 2018 for the 50th anniversary; most film, if in good quality, is capable of being scanned to 4k

Because it was edited by idiots

Poor editing or poor knowledge, 🤫

Bro that is hilarious!

Star wars used it on large scale, motion control wasn't created in 1976. A simple google search wound of found that.

@@katush8810 Star Wars pioneered motion control camera technique, created by ILM for that, pioneering new tech exactly like 2001. But 2001 did not have motion control cameras, they used camera movement (or spacecraft movement).

There are videos that show how the human body can't handle small rotating space stations because it will confuse the inner ear too much and make one ill. So you need a larger structure, at least 300 meters or so in diameter, to overcome that. Oddly that is exactly the diameter of Space Station V in 2001...

I feel exactly the same way. A lot of people have said exactly the same thing. I don't know if NASA has ever given an official answer as to why they haven't ever even tried to build a rotating space station like the one in 2001 Honestly, I don't understand why NASA or a foreign government has never tried to build a rotating space station that simulates artificial gravity. Given how much money the space program costs and how much money countries have spent on space exploration( when we still can't get things straightened out and properly in order right here on this planet), I'm genuinely surprised and puzzled why NASA or anyone else hasn't done it or even TRIED to do it.

@@JR-ju3kj The actual problem in reality is size, money to fund it and right now research and experiments up there rely on a lack of gravity. If say the spacecraft is small, the faster it has to rotate which can make the astronauts disoriented, so if you're going to generate gravity safely it's got to be done with a very large spacecraft that spins very slowly. The bigger the disk, the slower you can rotate it. Also, the disorienting thing will happen if your ship or station has any windows in it. If a spacecraft's rotating portion were too small, residents would feel a huge difference in the force imposed on their heads and what they felt on their feet. They'd end up dizzy and lightheaded because blood would be drawn down, away from the brain. Right now there's no spacecraft on the drawing board big enough to do this. It would have to be a very large, larger than a football field. A true viable ship at that scale, a rotating spacecraft becomes one heck of an expense. For now, short-term space travel doesn't really need artificial gravity. In fact, most of the research done on ISS relies on the lack of gravity. And on a long-term mission, say, to Mars would need a big fuel-hungry spacecraft.

Christopher Nolan is a talentless hack.

Nolan tries his best but never will be like Kubrick a legend

@@applescruff1969 Still a legend when compared to many CGI and actor's boot licking brats today

@@Brandonhayhew Christopher Nolan is a great director but Stanley Kubrick was and is in a class all by himself. I'm sure even Nolan himself would agree with that.

Like the director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin, said on the special features section for the 2001 Dvd, 2001 is the grandfather of pretty much every science fiction film that came after it( even whether or not the filmmakers know it, 2001 paved the way for them to be making Sci-Fi movies in space and to be taken seriously doing it). Stanley Kubrick was a lot of people's teacher and inspiration and I'm not even a filmmaker but I am an aspiring artist, author and comic book writer and 2001 was a big influence and inspiration for me, too!

It still is motion control just not the one star wars use. He didn't say 2001 was the first to used rotating stages he just said it was "Mainstreamed" by the movie. I really can say this video is bad is just not clear at all. Ok, 2 year ago person.

They were projected, video projection

@@qed100 still quite amazing how sharp they were for its time. Was this technique used in any other film from that era?

@@semirecumbentoneYT It was projected 16mm film, not video.

The material used for reflecting the projected image (Scotchlite) back to the camera is insanely reflective. (micro beaded) But only at an exact angle. So precise placement of the camera is necessary. But once nailed, look out. I bought a piece of it in the 1980's to fool with. (shooting Super 8 ) The ratio of reflectivity is so high that the projected image does not register on the ape suits, Tapirs, jaguar, etc. But it was reflected by the rear of the jaguar's eyes. Scotchlite can be found now on strips on the jackets of highway workers, etc. They use it for responding to headlights, mostly. You've seen it. Imagine getting the giant scotchlite screen to be perfect for 2001.

I liked your video and subscribed so if you can subscribe to me i would llike your video and get more peaple to subscribe to you

Simple Complicated blue Danube was made in the 18th century

@@ricimercury9490 @ by whom? Strauss?

Simple Complicated yes Johann Strauss

@@ricimercury9490 is this Bob Dylan in your profile pic?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out!

Niezle ziomuś

Don’t be ridiculous.

Correct, filmed and animated.

I think so 😆

Know 1's ever been.

Doh!! 2001 used Front Projection. Also, they used a non-computerized form of motion control for shooting the Discovery ship. They moved the camera or ship on a slowing turning worm-gear, that was accurately repeatable enough for their purposes.